06/11/2019 05:54, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > <snip> > > > Originally both SW and HW crypto PMDs use rte_crypot_op based API to > > process the crypto workload asynchronously. This way provides uniformity to > > both PMD types, but also introduce unnecessary performance penalty to SW > > PMDs that have to "simulate" HW async behavior (crypto-ops > > enqueue/dequeue, HW addresses computations, storing/dereferencing user > > provided data (mbuf) for each crypto-op, etc). > > > > The aim is to introduce a new optional API for SW crypto-devices to perform > > crypto processing in a synchronous manner. > > As summarized by Akhil, we need a synchronous API to perform crypto > > operations on raw data using SW PMDs, that provides: > > - no crypto-ops. > > - avoid using mbufs inside this API, use raw data buffers instead. > > - no separate enqueue-dequeue, only single process() API for data path. > > - input data buffers should be grouped by session, > > i.e. each process() call takes one session and group of input buffers > > that belong to that session. > > - All parameters that are constant accross session, should be stored > > inside the session itself and reused by all incoming data buffers. > > > > While there seems no controversy about need of such functionality, there > > seems to be no agreement on what would be the best API for that. > > So I am requesting for TB input on that matter. > > > > Series structure: > > - patch #1 - intorduce basic data structures to be used by sync API > > (no controversy here, I hope ..) > > [RFC 1/4] cpu-crypto: Introduce basic data structures > > - patch #2 - Intel initial approach for new API (via rte_security) > > [RFC 2/4] security: introduce cpu-crypto API > > - patch #3 - approach that reuses existing rte_cryptodev API as much as > > possible > > [RFC 3/4] cryptodev: introduce cpu-crypto API > > - patch #4 - approach via introducing new session data structure and API > > [RFC 4/4] cryptodev: introduce rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session API > > > > Patches 2,3,4 are mutually exclusive, > > and we probably have to choose which one to go forward with. > > I put some explanations in each of the patches, hopefully that will help to > > understand pros and cons of each one. > > > > Akhil strongly supports #3, AFAIK mainly because it allows PMDs to reuse > > existing API and minimize API level changes. > > IMO, from application perspective, it should not matter who (CPU or an > accelerator) does the crypto functionality. It just needs to know if the > result will be returned synchronously or asynchronously.
We already have asymmetric and symmetric APIs. Here you are proposing a third method: symmetric without mbuf for CPU PMDs > > My favorite is #4, #2 is less preferable but ok too. > > #3 seems problematic to me by the reasons I outlined in #4 patch > > description. > > > > Please provide your opinion. It means the API is not PMD agnostic, right?
